Limited federalism could still save the euro
Following the most recent EU leaders’ summit, financial markets gained some short-term stability. But the long-term prospects of the euro remain worrying and further reforms are needed to make the single currency viable for many more decades.
The latest decisions taken by the European Council comprise the initial measures needed for a banking union. European banks will soon be governed by a central regulator and they will also form part of a joint deposit guarantee scheme. Moreover, the European Stability Mechanism could now be used to recapitalise weak banks directly.
All these steps could lead to a financial union that many political and economic leaders believe is an essential prerequisite for stabilising the euro and encourage economic growth in the eurozone in the long term. But eurozone troubles have now become too deep to rely on one-off measures to support weak European banks or promote short-term economic activity.
The time may have come to introduce the concept of burden sharing in the economic and political field.
A version of partial federalism may be the most pragmatic way forward in this difficult context where many Europeans are becoming increasingly sceptical on whether the EU can really deliver the kind of economic growth and stability that will make their lives better. It may still be too early to transform the EU into the United States of Europe on the US model but there are other models.
It is unrealistic to expect that the different cultures in the EU member states will suddenly disappear and all EU citizens will accept a super state political structure where most important political and economic decisions are taken by some central governing body based in Brussels. This may not even be necessary.
The first step towards financial federalism has just been taken. With the setting up of a eurozone-wide system of bank supervision, recapitalisation, deposit insurance and regulation, a very significant building block for a stronger eurozone has been created. It needs to be followed by a limited fiscal union.
The levels of taxation and spending need not be established by some EU institution in Brussels. As far as possible, local governments should continue to establish the levels of public income and expenditure as long as they observe strict and supervised rules aimed at ensuring fiscal rectitude.
Similarly, not all national debts need to be pooled in some central Treasury and managed accordingly. There are already some sensible suggestions to pool all debt that is in excess of the 60 per cent of GDP benchmark that is normally accepted as being the maximum manageable level. This pool of excess debt would then be managed actively with the aim of repaying it in full in 25 years.
A limited fiscal union need not include forced harmonisation of taxes, a measure that could put at risk Malta’s competitiveness in the financial services sector. But Malta will benefit from a more stable eurozone as we have a very open economy and depend on our ability to export, especially to the eurozone. Malta’s membership of the eurozone has brought substantial benefits including new investment.
Some loss of sovereignty is a price worth paying to save the eurozone.
The risk to the introduction of limited federalism is the difficult political task of convincing the electorates of the different member states to give up some national sovereignty in return for the economic benefits of more integration.
Limited federalism may be the only pragmatic solution to the prevailing eurozone crisis.
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
M Sciberras
Jul 12th 2012, 14:45
The experience of other currency unions is clear. The best example is that of the United States after the Civil War, when the Federal Reserve agreed to guarantee the debt of all the states, especially the southern states who were on the losing side. This the EU signally fails to do, at the insistence of Germany which will only consider eurobonds and common central bank guarantees under a scenario of far closer fiscal and political union, which is very different from 'limited federalism' described here. One must therefore question whether 'some loss of sovereignty is a price worth paying to save the euro'.
James Dimech
Jul 12th 2012, 12:25
How dare you speak about the Euro and the economic crisis ! We should be speaking about more important things like JPO, RCC and how GooonnnZZIIPN lost control of his party.
M Sciberras
Jul 12th 2012, 11:40
Any form of 'limited federalism' involves surrending a measure of tax raising powers to Brussels and tax harmonisation. Let us not play wiith words - we cannot have it both ways. When the United States dollar became legal tender across the whole post Civil War Union the collective debts of all the states in the Union ((especially including the crippling debts of the southern states) were guaranteed by the Federal Reserve. over the vociferous objections of many. This is the surest way - having the ECB acting as a real ECB, and guaranteeing member states' debt - of ensuring the future of the euro. But this has been explicitly ruled out by Germany unless we have far more political and fiscal integration, of a degree that goes far beyond anything mentioned in this editorial. Let us not be so willing to flush our new independence so readily down the drain as, useless nationalistic feeling aside, it is Maltese who can best determine what is in the best interests of Maltese. It is no coincidence that post 1964 - under both PN and Labour - this country has made the progress that it has made. Even with a more 'democratic' EU - in other words assuming that he powers of the unelected Commission are trimmed and somehow channelled into an elected forum - the voice of a small country will be lost.. The European Parliament has shown itself to be a failure, with barely a third of the EU electorate voting for it and with many MEPs more interested in pursuing pet or populist issues than bread and butter issues like jobs. And even in this elected Chamber, Malta has the grand total of 6 MP's. Let us be careful what we wish for.
John Azzopoardi
Jul 12th 2012, 11:14
Limited federalism will not save the Euro.Europe is not the united states of America where there is not even one doubt of where the state loyalties lie. Europe is a fractured country of member states who at the end all want what is good for their own country and not what is good for Europe. I also think the original concept of an equal ecnomic union should have been the final goal coupled with a strong military. I am against any polical union for europe as the large counties of europe will always dominate in passing laws and agendas.
Please choose the reason of your report below: